Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#21

Post by rmc » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 2:16 PM UTC

Dirlewanger wrote: post #10

Fuck, I sincerely hope our generation (early-mid 20s) do not react like crusty sheltered curmudgeons in 15-30 years when they occupy these positions of power and are confronted with something they've never seen before. I'm not too hopeful though. One of the few constants in life is that while individually people may change, groups of them rarely do.

Highly likely. Remember what happened when the 1960s generation of free love and drugs got in power and legalised weed, and promoted sex? Yeah me either

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#22

Post by dclowd9901 » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 2:22 PM UTC

Dirlewanger wrote: post #10

Fuck, I sincerely hope our generation (early-mid 20s) do not react like crusty sheltered curmudgeons in 15-30 years when they occupy these positions of power and are confronted with something they've never seen before. I'm not too hopeful though. One of the few constants in life is that while individually people may change, groups of them rarely do.

I think it's likely that there is a correlation between the longevity of a person, and their level of conservativeness. Wouldn't surprise me if most older people are, by nature, pretty restrictive.

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#23

Post by cle » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 2:26 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #21

Dirlewanger wrote: post #10

Fuck, I sincerely hope our generation (early-mid 20s) do not react like crusty sheltered curmudgeons in 15-30 years when they occupy these positions of power and are confronted with something they've never seen before. I'm not too hopeful though. One of the few constants in life is that while individually people may change, groups of them rarely do.

Highly likely. Remember what happened when the 1960s generation of free love and drugs got in power and legalised weed, and promoted sex? Yeah me either

Maybe our perception of the 1960s generation is a good example of the spotlight fallacy.

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#24

Post by rayiner » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 2:37 PM UTC

Dirlewanger wrote: post #10

Fuck, I sincerely hope our generation (early-mid 20s) do not react like crusty sheltered curmudgeons in 15-30 years when they occupy these positions of power and are confronted with something they've never seen before. I'm not too hopeful though. One of the few constants in life is that while individually people may change, groups of them rarely do.

I hope "your generation" at some point realizes that the challenges facing Uber don't stem from "opposition to the new." People aren't shocked and confused by the sheer novelty and innovation of being able to call a cab with a phone. They're reacting to companies trampling over settled expectations and compromises. Municipalities created these regulated taxi systems, and used monopoly status as a carrot in return for imposing regulation. If they let Uber and Lyft come in and skim the cream off the top of the market, without having to follow those same regulations, they would be failing to hold up their end of the bargain.

This isn't empty scolding. As "software eats the world" and tech companies start trying to compete in "meat space" industries, it will be imperative for them to understand why things are done the way they are, and how fruitful progress can be made without creating unnecessary friction by simply ignoring settled expectations. People won't react well to someone just plucking the onion out of the varnish unless he can demonstrate that he understands why the onion was in there to begin with, and articulate convincingly why it no longer needs to be in there.

I totally agree that the structural compromise that led to taxi monopolies need to be revisited. But not because Uber and Lyft change the market dynamics in any relevant way. These monopolies need to be revisited because highly regulated markets like that have proven to become a liability over time, and the deregulation experiment in the U.S. over the last few decades has shown that lightly-regulated markets function better.

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#25

Post by dbingham » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 2:48 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #24

Dirlewanger wrote: post #10

Fuck, I sincerely hope our generation (early-mid 20s) do not react like crusty sheltered curmudgeons in 15-30 years when they occupy these positions of power and are confronted with something they've never seen before. I'm not too hopeful though. One of the few constants in life is that while individually people may change, groups of them rarely do.

I hope "your generation" at some point realizes that the challenges facing Uber don't stem from "opposition to the new." People aren't shocked and confused by the sheer novelty and innovation of being able to call a cab with a phone. They're reacting to companies trampling over settled expectations and compromises. Municipalities created these regulated taxi systems, and used monopoly status as a carrot in return for…

I was with you right up until the last sentence. I do not think it is fair to say that "the deregulation experiment has shown that lightly regulated markets function better". This is how we wound up with the 2008 crash, the ascendency of finance and the absurd wealth gap we currently have.

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#26

Post by jheriko » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 2:52 PM UTC

it is sad to see this but thoroughly unexpected.

all these useful and innovative startups are great, but they need to learn the most basic respect for the law and its spirit. this is the nth time something like this has happened in the startup community and its embarassing.

we have taxi driver licenses and regulations for a reason. naivete isn't an excuse for blatantly circumventing them - even if you provide a genuinely useful service that we would all like to see grow and help redefine our futures...

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#27

Post by pmorici » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 2:58 PM UTC

analog31 wrote: post #14

CurtHagenlocher wrote: post #6

I'm genuinely curious: what is it that distinguishes these services from taxis? Why is it okay for one to be regulated but not the other -- or do proponents of these services generally think that taxis shouldn't be regulated either?

In a big city like NYC, taxis are part of an overall transportation system. Regulating them ensures that they are available where and when they are expected to be. People plan their activities around the functioning of that system. Naturally, a different system might work better or worse. A worse outcome would be more people taking their own cars into the city because they need or want quick access to a vehicle. Regu…

"Regulating them ensures that they are available where and when they are expected to be."

Do you actually believe that? Because I don't see how it could possibly be true. Uber does a better job of providing cars when and where they're needed than any other cab company I've ever seen. Not only to they make it easy for drivers to work part time to accommodate higher demand during peak hours they also provide service to areas of cites where taxi drivers flat out refuse to go despite their supposed regulated status to provide service to all parts of the city. I've talked to people who use Uber in Baltimore about it for example and before Uber they would routinely be stranded in bad parts of town or off the beaten path areas and the taxi dispatcher would literally laugh at them if they called for a pickup.

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#28

Post by rayiner » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 3:03 PM UTC

dbingham wrote: post #25

rayiner wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope "your generation" at some point realizes that the challenges facing Uber don't stem from "opposition to the new." People aren't shocked and confused by the sheer novelty and innovation of being able to call a cab with a phone. They're reacting to companies trampling over settled expectations and compromises. Municipalities created these regulated taxi systems, and used monopoly status as a carrot in return for…

I was with you right up until the last sentence. I do not think it is fair to say that "the deregulation experiment has shown that lightly regulated markets function better". This is how we wound up with the 2008 crash, the ascendency of finance and the absurd wealth gap we currently have.

Historically in the U.S., "regulation" implied heavy-handed measures like rate setting, price controls, capacity setting, market segmentation, granting monopolies, etc. Scaling back those measures has been very successful. For example, deregulation of freight and airlines in the 1970's allowed the modern integrated delivery networks that make Amazon possible. The trend since then has been to avoid these particularly heavy-handed and market-distorting sorts of measures. I don't think even proponents of heavier banking regulations espouse regulating banks in the way we say regulated passenger railroads (which killed them).

In the context of cabs, a "lightly regulated" regime might require background checks, minimum insurance, and some sort of mechanism for verifying driver identity and reporting problems. Variables like rates, capacity, coverage area, etc, could be left to the market.

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#29

Post by pmorici » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 3:05 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #24

Dirlewanger wrote: post #10

Fuck, I sincerely hope our generation (early-mid 20s) do not react like crusty sheltered curmudgeons in 15-30 years when they occupy these positions of power and are confronted with something they've never seen before. I'm not too hopeful though. One of the few constants in life is that while individually people may change, groups of them rarely do.

I hope "your generation" at some point realizes that the challenges facing Uber don't stem from "opposition to the new." People aren't shocked and confused by the sheer novelty and innovation of being able to call a cab with a phone. They're reacting to companies trampling over settled expectations and compromises. Municipalities created these regulated taxi systems, and used monopoly status as a carrot in return for…

"They're reacting to companies trampling over settled expectations and compromises. Municipalities created these regulated taxi systems, and used monopoly status as a carrot in return for imposing regulation."

Has anyone looked at if taxi companies actually hold up their end of the bargain? In Baltimore taxis routinely refuse to make pickups in various parts of town either because they are out of the way or because they are perceived to be "bad".

With something like a taxi that you hail from the street and don't know what you are getting into before you get in some light regulation is reasonable for accident and scam reduction But a brand like Uber that achieves those same goals through different means shouldn't be pushed out of existence and of all laws to pass limiting the number of drivers is just a blatant attempt to protect existing taxi's

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#30

Post by Shivetya » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 3:09 PM UTC

dbingham wrote: post #25

rayiner wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope "your generation" at some point realizes that the challenges facing Uber don't stem from "opposition to the new." People aren't shocked and confused by the sheer novelty and innovation of being able to call a cab with a phone. They're reacting to companies trampling over settled expectations and compromises. Municipalities created these regulated taxi systems, and used monopoly status as a carrot in return for…

I was with you right up until the last sentence. I do not think it is fair to say that "the deregulation experiment has shown that lightly regulated markets function better". This is how we wound up with the 2008 crash, the ascendency of finance and the absurd wealth gap we currently have.

Deregulation didn't create the wealth gap. Government regulation favoring aligned interest (read: political donors) created a regulatory environment with sufficient holes and guarantees to allow this accumulation of wealth. Go look at the history of Congress, how many come out richer or become vastly richer afterward?

Deregulation does work in many industries, regulation should never be a barrier to entry into an industry but that is what it has evolved into. It is not there to keep the public safe, to ensure pricing, or even to maintain consistency of service, it is there to protect established interest and their political backers/beneficiaries.